Jump to content


Cruisers; Steel, Paper, or Fiction?

cruisers Heavy Cruisers Light Cruisers Protected Cruisers Armored Cruisers paper ships

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

Lord_Magus #21 Posted 28 September 2016 - 04:45 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,569
  • Member since:
    08-18-2016
I was thinking in terms of Jeanne d'Arc being a ship that would be weak at Tier 4 so maybe she'd work at Tier 3, but you're right about how the guns are way too good for that tier. I'd really prefer there didn't end up being a German cruiser in the French tree, but if that's what it takes to make a balanced tree then that's what it takes.

mr3awsome #22 Posted 28 September 2016 - 07:37 AM

    Fleet Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester
    In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 13,702
  • Member since:
    08-16-2012

The French have a couple of options for tier III. 

The most obvious one is Lamotte-Piquet, the 4,500t light cruiser. 

Like a number of French naval projects, it was foresaken by circumstance, in this case WWI. 

Essentially its the equivalent of Caledon. 

 

There is also the design that lies between the above and Duguay Trouin (which would have been the tier IV is WG had any sense of foresight)

which has the 138mm guns of the above in the layout of Duguay Trouin. 

 

Who needs a nice smooth progression curve?


 


Poland has more unique warships to contribute than Canada.


Lord_Magus #23 Posted 01 October 2016 - 09:30 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,569
  • Member since:
    08-18-2016
At any rate, I presume WG would have to go fictional for the Tier 10 French cruiser. An enlarged Saint Louis with quad turrets, maybe.

Phoenix_jz #24 Posted 02 October 2016 - 11:09 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,392
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013
Alright, the chart's updated. Nothing major, no changes to what's already in-game/confirmed, but just an update to the speculative French stuff. I've added a tier 1, 2, and 10 design. Tier 3, I still haven't figured out, currently trying to find info on the Lamotte-Piquet design. The tier 1 is a variation of the Bougainville-class that was never completed, hence purple, and the tier II, Graviére was France's final protected cruiser, which saw service during WWI(and obviously is green). Credit for both goes to Lord_Magnus. The tier X is a paper(so blue) design, basically like the tier IX but with autoloading style guns.

 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


Snowyskies #25 Posted 04 October 2016 - 04:01 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 92
  • Member since:
    04-30-2016
How about Dupleix as the tier III French cruiser? Similar to St. Louis in terms of armor, speed and size but with 4x2 164,7 mm guns. The main sore point is the rate of fire of 3 rounds per minute if you go by the 164,7 mm gun that is on NavWeaps. I've however read that they had an APC shell of 54,9 kg fired at 900 m/s which is pretty decent. Unlike the mount data on NavWeaps I've also read the claim that the guns on Dupleix were electrically trained rather than manually - maybe the rate of fire was also higher? Probably not, but with some WG tweaks it might be alright. One bonus over St. Louis is the armored turrets, you won't just randomly lose guns to enemy HE fire.

Edited by Snowyskies, 04 October 2016 - 04:03 AM.


Phoenix_jz #26 Posted 04 October 2016 - 10:44 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,392
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View PostSnowyskies, on 04 October 2016 - 04:01 AM, said:

How about Dupleix as the tier III French cruiser? Similar to St. Louis in terms of armor, speed and size but with 4x2 164,7 mm guns. The main sore point is the rate of fire of 3 rounds per minute if you go by the 164,7 mm gun that is on NavWeaps. I've however read that they had an APC shell of 54,9 kg fired at 900 m/s which is pretty decent. Unlike the mount data on NavWeaps I've also read the claim that the guns on Dupleix were electrically trained rather than manually - maybe the rate of fire was also higher? Probably not, but with some WG tweaks it might be alright. One bonus over St. Louis is the armored turrets, you won't just randomly lose guns to enemy HE fire.

 

Perhaps...although she's essentially a slightly slower, more heavily armored version of the ship the last tier, but this time her armament is in twin turrets rather than single mounts... the 3 rpm... that might need buffs in order for it to fit. She'll only be able to fire 6 shots per broadside, so that's at best 18 rounds on a target in a minute. To compare to St. Louis, who can put 8 guns on target, with a RoF of 7.5rpm... that's 60 shells at a target in a minute. St. Louis is also faster, and her shells will likely do more damage... 3,000 for the AP, at a muzzle velocity of 853mps... while the 164.7mm gun, with a MV of 770mps, will only manage 2,800 with her original ammo, and with the heavier shell from the 1940s, she can just reach 3,000... I don't know what the bursting charge for the HE shells is, but it'll probably do more damage than St. Louis, as it is a heavier shell... but it's from the '40s as well. All that at 3 rpm with a 6 gun broadside? Even if you gave it 4rpm, that's still only 24 shells on target... Even stock, St. Louis would be able to out-fight her.

 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


Snowyskies #27 Posted 04 October 2016 - 11:36 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 92
  • Member since:
    04-30-2016

Yes, if all the NavWeap values are correct then it's pretty much out of the question, but...

From Naval Weapons of World War One by Norman Friedman assuming I'm reading the table correctly: a 45 kg CI shell with 2.1 kg burster (no muzzle velocity given, probably 935 m/s), a 54.9 kg APC with 0.97 kg burster fired at 900 m/s and a 52.3 kg SAPC with 3.1 kg burster fired at 865 m/s. The 770 m/s (with a 52.3 kg SAPC) value as given on NavWeap would be for the M1891 and M1893 models, not the M1893-96 that's on Dupleix if Norman Friedman is to be trusted. (Edit: To clarify these seem to be the values already in the WW1 era for the M1893-96 gun)

Still, 3 rpm is on the low side even with these better shell values, but then rate of fire is also one of the NavWeaps values that I put the least trust on. Not that they are necessarily incorrect but it's difficult to know how comparable they are. No rate of fire value is outright give by Friedman.


Edited by Snowyskies, 06 October 2016 - 12:00 AM.


Lord_Magus #28 Posted 05 October 2016 - 07:42 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,569
  • Member since:
    08-18-2016
I really like the idea of having an armored cruiser in the game and especially of a non-premium one. It's a pity that Edgar Quinet is way too strong  and Dupleix is too weak unless the ROF gets an ahistorical buff. There's few enough armored cruisers that had a single-caliber main battery that it'd be nice to get as many of those as possible in the game.

Phoenix_jz #29 Posted 07 October 2016 - 12:57 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,392
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

Navweaps does have quite a few variations of guns whose specifics aren't listed, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Given the values you've given, that raises her damage quite a bit, she could reach 3300 AP damage, at at 900mps, that would give her some really nice arcs.

However, she still retains the RoF issue, which will be hard to balance even with a full extra round per minute... Given the guns and their ballistics, I could see a better range justified, although that seems to be depended on fire control rather than actual max range. Also, one should not ignore the penetration of these guns. If these guns are able to hit that sweet stop of pen in tier 3- enough pen to get through St. Louis's armor, but not too much as to over-pen it... She could just rely on high pen damage. That'd be a fun ships. However, I still think 3rpm is unacceptable as a RoF number, and would definitely need some kind of buff... and that's the one sticking point.

Seems to be the sticking point for France in general XD


 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


Snowyskies #30 Posted 14 October 2016 - 10:03 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 92
  • Member since:
    04-30-2016

Nope, I sure wouldn't like 3 rpm either so I don't disagree with that. On the other hand I'd rather fudge around with the rate of fire than introduce a fantasy ship there. As Magus said it is also uncommon with armoured cruisers that has a single-calibre battery and I'd love to see at least one of the French armoured cruisers ingame, so Dupleix in that sense is such a nice match. No idea what it's with the French guns and low rate of fire though, but on the other hand the importance of a theoretical high rate of fire is probably exaggerated in WoWS compared to the real world.

 

By the way in your General Discussion -> Warships; Steel, Paper, or Fiction? thread you have "Aircraft Carriers: Thread here", "Battleships: Thread here", "Cruisers: Thread here" and "Destroyers: Thread here" above their respective graphics, but you don't actually link to their respective threads! "Aircraft Carriers: Thread here" links back to your General Discussion thread while the other three don't link anywhere. I'm a bit late with pointing this out but you might want to fix it.



Phoenix_jz #31 Posted 15 October 2016 - 01:27 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,392
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013
Crap!
Thanks for the heads up, I'll fix it when I can next get to my computer... That's annoying, they worked when I first posted them... Argh, I sense Murphy's law at work here!

 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


Phoenix_jz #32 Posted 15 October 2016 - 07:33 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,392
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013
Alright, the links have been repaired, they should work perfectly fine now. I also fixed a few of the lower-tier mistakes in my German DD speculation box.

 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


Doomlock #33 Posted 16 December 2016 - 12:28 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 1,749
  • Member since:
    07-09-2013

Hey Phoenix, I know it's not much but here's what I could find on Zaō: 1941 Type A heavy cruiser.

 

From Shipbucket: This ship was designed in early 1941 for the Dai-Roku-Ji Kaigun Gunbi Hojū Keikaku (Sixth Naval Armaments Supplement Program), also known as Maru 6 Keikaku (Circle Six Program) but the plan was quickly shelved and replaced with the 1941 wartime construction program in September 1941.
the 1941 Type A cruiser was planned as an eight-ship class, 218 meters long, armed with twelve 8-inch (203mm) guns in triple turrets and twelve 3.9-inch (100mm) guns in twin turrets (the same model that would eventually see service with the Akizuki class destroyers) and a 5.5-inch(140mm) planned armor belt would have been a match even for the Des Moines heavy cruisers (at least in terms of dimensions and firepower).


From a personal point of view tough these ships had a flaw, the 4 quadruple torpedo tubes fitted there at the stern; knowing how susceptible to explode was the Long Lance when hit in battle there is a real risk of wrecking the entire stern loosing steering and propellers at the same time, as the Japanese CA's proved also a bit susceptible to had their stern crippled by torpedo hits (a fact that Takao, Myoko, Haguro and Chikuma learned at their expense).

 

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3704


Fair winds and following seas! -Doomlock

Doom lord of HiNon: Purveyor of ship knowledge.

 

My Complete list of Warship Pics and AHLA's


Phoenix_jz #34 Posted 29 December 2016 - 10:33 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,392
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View PostDoomlock, on 15 December 2016 - 07:28 PM, said:

-snip-

 

 

Ah, the mysterious Zao... yeah, I've seen the image before, but once again, it's an artist's interpretation stemming back to a magazine publication.

 

She was never actually planned out, but rather there were specifications assigned. The artist of the magazine, from what I understand, drew up what they believed the ship would look like based off of that, and that has been what every 'Zao' (as we know her) has been based off of. The ship from shipbucket comes from the same place, the circle six program's specifications.


 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


LoneStormchaser #35 Posted 16 January 2017 - 07:03 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 420
  • Member since:
    07-31-2016
Is there any plan that you might be aware of, of the Alaska class cruiser being implemented into the game?


 


Azumazi #36 Posted 17 January 2017 - 10:57 AM

    Commander

  • Alpha Tester

  • 3,391
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPhoenix_jz, on 29 December 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

 

Ah, the mysterious Zao... yeah, I've seen the image before, but once again, it's an artist's interpretation stemming back to a magazine publication.

 

She was never actually planned out, but rather there were specifications assigned. The artist of the magazine, from what I understand, drew up what they believed the ship would look like based off of that, and that has been what every 'Zao' (as we know her) has been based off of. The ship from shipbucket comes from the same place, the circle six program's specifications.

 

Pretty much this,

 

All we truly have is the circle requirements and the different listings on the tonnage, armament, and the following. The Original program called for up to 8 new Class A cruisers to replace the Furutaka/Aoba and Myoko classes, and without the limitation of the treaty, they opted to design them larger.

 

Initially, they just opted to refine the Mogami class with the Ibuki, but designs were generated of 12500, 14000, and 15000 tonnes. The General Board put forth the following requirements.

 

Cruisers are to be capable of resisting vertical fire from 20.3cm guns and horizontal fire from 15.2cm guns. A radius of 8000nm at 18kt, armed with 20.3cm guns and the new Type 93 torpedo. So from there, they designed ships, but due to the war any progress on them was canceled past 1942. They did grow into the B-65 design. Hence why the magazine/art design of it borrowed concepts and ideas. To my knowledge only quick sketches of the new Type A cruisers were done with basic hull line, turret placement, turret type (2 gun, 3 gun, and to my knowledge one 4 gun design) but no actual blueprint or preliminary concept was done beyond. The armor listed in the magazine article was based off a Japanese report that listed what armor would be required to meet the horizontal and vertical fire requirements. Basically, 152mm at 15 degrees incline to resist 8'' shell impacts and 40mm deck to resist 6'' impacts.

 

Later on though, they found in studies and results against the Mogami class, that 30-40mm of deck armor was not enough to resist bomb impacts and that became a concern, especially considering that US 600lbs AP bombs were effective against such armor.

 

Everything beyond this was discontinued as the B-65 was pushed forward and then it was too canceled due to progress in the war after Midway.


Japanese Ship Expert and Ship Design Architect schooled at the US Naval War College.

.......................


Phoenix_jz #37 Posted 18 January 2017 - 09:48 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,392
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View PostLoneStormchaser, on 16 January 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

Is there any plan that you might be aware of, of the Alaska class cruiser being implemented into the game?

 

Nope, not that i've heard. I'm sure WG will hold back on her for a long time, not only because they've got a lot of other stuff to add before they revisit the American or Japanese trees (outside of balance issues), but also because the Alaska's will be an absolute headache to figure out.

 

However, the more they play around with fragile ships with large caliber guns that tread the line between cruiser and battleship, the more they'll get a feel for the fate of Alaska. She's ultimately a cruiser... but her armor is quite akin to that of Dunkerque, with a 229mm belt closed by 260mm bulkheads. Her deck thickness depends on where on the ship you are, 108mm over the magazines at over the machinery up to 102mm.

 

The extreme ends of the ship will be determined by what tier WG puts her, and if she's a cruiser or battleship... and while she is a cruiser, for game purposes i think she'd have to be counted as a BB (their hitpoints are calculated differently, and while as a BB her hitpoints would be ok, as a cruiser they'd be astronomical.

 

Her AA is easy to predict; 

6x2 127mm/38:   90.6 dps @ 5.01km,

14x4 40mm/60:   222.6 dps @ 3.51km,

34x1 20mm/70:   122.4 dps @ 2.01km,

 

Basically a bit better than Baltimore.

 

As far as guns go... they'll have awful, awful arcs (762mps MV)... but they should hit pretty hard (SHS, so considering the damage boost they get... probably around 9000 damage on a citadel hit), and they are fairly quick firing (20-25 second reload).

 

She's fast at 33kts, but probably turns like an Iowa... so I'd imagine she'd be fairly vulnerable to torpedoes.

 

As a BB, she's have 25mm of bow/stern armor if tier VI or VII, and 32mm if tier VIII+... and that will have a big affect on her durability.

In the case she's a cruiser, than that's 16mm at tier VI or VII, and 25mm if tier VIII+

 

 

 

 


Edited by Phoenix_jz, 18 January 2017 - 09:48 PM.

 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


Battlecruiser_Guam #38 Posted 19 January 2017 - 03:31 AM

    Seaman

  • Beta Testers

  • 19
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPhoenix_jz, on 18 January 2017 - 09:48 PM, said:

 

Nope, not that i've heard. I'm sure WG will hold back on her for a long time, not only because they've got a lot of other stuff to add before they revisit the American or Japanese trees (outside of balance issues), but also because the Alaska's will be an absolute headache to figure out.

 

However, the more they play around with fragile ships with large caliber guns that tread the line between cruiser and battleship, the more they'll get a feel for the fate of Alaska. She's ultimately a cruiser... but her armor is quite akin to that of Dunkerque, with a 229mm belt closed by 260mm bulkheads. Her deck thickness depends on where on the ship you are, 108mm over the magazines at over the machinery up to 102mm.

 

The extreme ends of the ship will be determined by what tier WG puts her, and if she's a cruiser or battleship... and while she is a cruiser, for game purposes i think she'd have to be counted as a BB (their hitpoints are calculated differently, and while as a BB her hitpoints would be ok, as a cruiser they'd be astronomical.

 

Her AA is easy to predict; 

6x2 127mm/38:   90.6 dps @ 5.01km,

14x4 40mm/60:   222.6 dps @ 3.51km,

34x1 20mm/70:   122.4 dps @ 2.01km,

 

Basically a bit better than Baltimore.

 

As far as guns go... they'll have awful, awful arcs (762mps MV)... but they should hit pretty hard (SHS, so considering the damage boost they get... probably around 9000 damage on a citadel hit), and they are fairly quick firing (20-25 second reload).

 

She's fast at 33kts, but probably turns like an Iowa... so I'd imagine she'd be fairly vulnerable to torpedoes.

 

As a BB, she's have 25mm of bow/stern armor if tier VI or VII, and 32mm if tier VIII+... and that will have a big affect on her durability.

In the case she's a cruiser, than that's 16mm at tier VI or VII, and 25mm if tier VIII+

 

 

 

 

 

you make it seem as though her arcs are the worst ingame( looking at you cleveland ), their not 762 MV is  quite manageable if they model them like the Iowa's at med to long range their great at hitting below the waterline of ships and countering the turtle back armor of german ships. Her turn radius was also 731m so not as good as a Colorado but better then the other T7 BBs currently in game.

 

given the ships' specs i'd expect her to come  in as a T7 premium BB.


Edited by ACEGUNNER0228, 19 January 2017 - 03:39 AM.


LoneStormchaser #39 Posted 20 January 2017 - 12:48 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 420
  • Member since:
    07-31-2016

View PostPhoenix_jz, on 18 January 2017 - 02:48 PM, said:

 

Nope, not that i've heard. I'm sure WG will hold back on her for a long time, not only because they've got a lot of other stuff to add before they revisit the American or Japanese trees (outside of balance issues), but also because the Alaska's will be an absolute headache to figure out.

 

However, the more they play around with fragile ships with large caliber guns that tread the line between cruiser and battleship, the more they'll get a feel for the fate of Alaska. She's ultimately a cruiser... but her armor is quite akin to that of Dunkerque, with a 229mm belt closed by 260mm bulkheads. Her deck thickness depends on where on the ship you are, 108mm over the magazines at over the machinery up to 102mm.

 

The extreme ends of the ship will be determined by what tier WG puts her, and if she's a cruiser or battleship... and while she is a cruiser, for game purposes i think she'd have to be counted as a BB (their hitpoints are calculated differently, and while as a BB her hitpoints would be ok, as a cruiser they'd be astronomical.

 

Her AA is easy to predict;

6x2 127mm/38:   90.6 dps @ 5.01km,

14x4 40mm/60:   222.6 dps @ 3.51km,

34x1 20mm/70:   122.4 dps @ 2.01km,

 

Basically a bit better than Baltimore.

 

As far as guns go... they'll have awful, awful arcs (762mps MV)... but they should hit pretty hard (SHS, so considering the damage boost they get... probably around 9000 damage on a citadel hit), and they are fairly quick firing (20-25 second reload).

 

She's fast at 33kts, but probably turns like an Iowa... so I'd imagine she'd be fairly vulnerable to torpedoes.

 

As a BB, she's have 25mm of bow/stern armor if tier VI or VII, and 32mm if tier VIII+... and that will have a big affect on her durability.

In the case she's a cruiser, than that's 16mm at tier VI or VII, and 25mm if tier VIII+

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Alaska line would be awesome for the US group that are in the game now. Yes, I can see WG dumbing them down to the point people would hate them and besides, nobody wants the US to have really good ships. Still, since they are implementing new ships into the game, either the Guam or the Alaska would be awesome, if not just to own one.



 


Phoenix_jz #40 Posted 22 January 2017 - 06:00 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,392
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013
She'd be pretty unique, but it would be difficult to balance. I agree tier VII BB sounds best though.

A better armed, torpedoless, less armored Scharnhorst

 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users